Conditional Immortality and "Elementary" Spirits
But this is not all. It is of no small importance to know what are the opinions of the most primitive races as to man’s future, because theirs is likely to be the most probable exposition of the most primitive teachings. Now among the least advanced races in the world are the Australian aborigines, and these people believe in metempsychosis. Mr. G. Pfoundes told us in a letter to the Daily Telegraph, of October 5th:—“The black fellow wishes that ‘ the white fellow ’ may die and jump up working bullock, and that he may have the driving of him.” Captain Burton, that great traveller, and noble minded man, tells us m his Trips to the Gorilla Land, that “Africans have a material, evanescent, intelligible future, not an immaterial incomprehensible eternity; the ghost endures only for a while, and perishes like the little great man.” The above is destruction of the soul pure and simple, but with no “survival of the fittest.” Nevertheless, metempsychosis must certainly be taught also by the Africans, as Captain Burton tells of being present when an African chief said to a third person present, a white man, “When so be I die, I come up for white man. When so be you die, you come up for monkey.” Again, the late respected Baron Holmfield, that good, earnest Spiritualist, in an article against the spiritist doctrine, as given in your Number of May 12th, 1876, says:—“Reincarnation is with the Zulus a belief; they hold that unprogressed spirits are still bound to earthly objects, or animals; a belief quite as crude as that of the spiritists, but less absurd.” Leslie, in his Among the Zulus, tells us that the Spiritualism of these people “puts to blush the Davenports and the Homes.” He says that they believe that their spirits, after death, turn into snakes, which they call “eklose,” and that every living man has two of these familiars, a good and a bad, with whom many hold communion.
I think, myself, that the event of spirits appearing as animals is no proof that the soul of a man ever retrogrades into that of an animal, although low spirits may have told men that they do thus retrograde; and this may have given rise to the belief in such metempsychosis as the good old Baron described. But again, I say, it is no proof that men do so retrograde; and one of my chief reasons for this assertion is, that when the apparent ghost of an animal appears to a clairvoyant, it invariably, I am inclined to think, shows such intelligence as no animal can possibly demonstrate; and though it may be the intelligence of malice, lying, and hatred, it is still the intelligence of the mind of a man. The very fact of the Zulus commencing with their deceased fellows, who they believe are turned into animals at their decease, is evidence of what I have affirmed, that a spirit appearing as an animal is, in fact, the spirit of a man in the form of an animal. I think, also, that spirits who assume the form of animals are not necessarily the worst spirits. I have some reason for believing that such spirits have greater power in producing an aggravating bodily disease, than in causing mental anguish or wickedness. We must remember, as Hue says, that the Buddhists attribute all disease to evil spirits. And I am inclined to believe that the spirits who obsess men most dangerously are spirits that are heard clairaudiently; for how many poor madmen are so obsessed. And what an awful public example we have lately had of such an obsession, and its extreme danger if heeded and not fought against, in Lefroy, supposing the whole tale were not a lie. But are these unheard tempters to lying? True, Guiteau, too, declares the assassination of General Garfield to have been “an inspiration.” When asked, what he meant, he answered: “I understand inspiration to exist in a case where a man’s mind was taken possession of by a supreme power, and he acted outside himself.” Guiteau said also: “I knew the Lord employed me, because he always employs the best material. At first I was horrified.” Now here Spiritualists have a great advantage over the “orthodox,” who discard spirits and the idea of them; because the former know not only, by experience, that they exist, but their powers, if yielded to; and how often their promptings are false, therefore for ill; and they ought to know also that bad fruit must come from a corrupt tree, which Guiteau did not calculate on. And how many Spiritualists does this knowledge save from evil, as well as from the madhouse! Where, indeed, are the guardian Angels? There is no more safety among some spirits, than in the streets of London. That, alas! has been a cry only too frequent of late, and it is to be feared with some reason on its side. What is to keep the moth from the candle? Well, if it had common sense, this would be as good as a guardian angel, if not better and more watchful, it is to be feared. It would be remembered that, even now, in these days of scorn, the proper language of the very law-courts is, that when men commit great offences they are tempted of the devil; for which term, if we put, “a demon or demons,” as the Revised Testament advises, thanks to the American Committee, we cannot, perhaps, go far wrong.}}
And what are the doctrines of the Bible on the questions we have been considering? They are composite. This destruction of the soul is, without doubt, most plainly taught in both the Old and the New Testaments, and this is in accord with the doctrine of the Theosophist; but as certainly do both the Old and the New Testament teach, and this in disaccord with the Theosophist, that, so long as the soul exists, the spirit is co-existent with it. Quite as plainly do the Old and New Testament teach re incarnation. We can hardly doubt, too, I think, that the new Testament teaches also progress by re-incarnation, for surely John the Baptist was a nobler character than Elijah; for the Baptist was a grand, self-denying teacher of righteousness; while Elijah, with many powerful qualities, was chiefly remarkable, like the patriarch Jacob, as being a very powerful physical medium indeed (and consequently as such “an astral man” according to Col. Olcott) who proved himself blood-thirsty to a degree in the hour of his greatest success; and the reverse of brave when he fled away from the angry women who would have avenged his indiscriminate slaughterings. Though “astral man” or no, he is said to have re-incarnated and thereby got back his immortal spirit, for, according to Theosophy and Col. Olcott, every boy and girl about seven years old gets the immortal spirit. The avengement was left till Elijah’s second coming, when he was himself slain, through the revenge of a woman. Surely, too, the prediction of the second coming of Jesus denotes progress, progress in world—power at least. The New Testament teaches, also, progress without re-incarnation. We have this in the doctrine of the few and many stripes, for the many as well as the few must have an end. We have progress taught also in the doctrine of paying the last farthing. Both these apply to Hades, opened up to the laity by the revised Testament. And so we see that the Bible gives argument to the Spiritists, and to the Spiritualist also, as it does likewise to the Theosophist. Did I not say that it is composite in character? So is it also cosmopolite.
And here I would desire to make a very few remarks on an observation of Col. Olcott’s. He says:—“Did you ever understand what Jesus meant in saying that a man could lose <... continues on page 11-356.1 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ Conditional Immortality and "Elementary" Spirits by Scrutator, London Spiritualist, No. 488, December 30, 1881, pp. 318-20
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 488, December 30, 1881, pp. 318-20
Inlay
< Conditional Immortality and "Elementary" Spirits (continued from page 11-356) >
his Psuche? Note, please, his soul, not his nous (immortal spirit); that cannot be lost, for it is eternal and immortal.”
Col. Olcott, we see, puts the nous as synonymous with the immortal spirit; and certainly our chief recognition of God is as nous. But what is nous? I look in Donnegan’s Greek Dictionary, and I find Nous thus interpreted, and by the following words only: “Thought, Purpose, Resolution, Sentiment, Opinion, the Manner of thinking, or Disposition of Mind, the Mind in a general sense, as the seat of the passions and of feeling, Intelligence, Sagacity, Foresight, the Mind, the Understanding, Prudence, Wisdom, Judgment, Consideration, Meaning, Purpose or Object.” Now I would ask Col. Olcott if he ever met with an “astral man,” or “elementary” who did not demonstrate one or other, all or many of the qualities here described as the signification of the Greek word nous? How then, can the “astral man” have lost it? He may have lost his goodness, or most of it, but not his nous. On the other hand, when school boys wish to denote a stupid fellow, they say, “he has no nous,” but he may be a good boy nevertheless.
An Indian Medium
A correspondent of an English paper, says The Two Worlds, writing from Madras, India, gives the following account of phenomena witnessed there:
A beautiful young Rajput of twenty, by name Padmasing, is attracting much attention at Madras. I was present at one of his performances, which are like the spiritualistic stances in America. He began the performance by playing on the fiddle, the exquisiteness of which I am at a loss to describe. It was the grandest performance I ever heard. There was a small tent about a yard and a half in height in the centre of the house where the performance was given. This was made up of four iron bars; the base formed a square, and the top of it was a dome made up of sticks. The tent had a red satin cover. The construction of this tent, or whatever you may call it, was such that it could be taken to pieces and adjusted in a minute. Then came the “Dusavathanum.” This was done by playing ten kinds of musical instruments. We had the tent examined and found nothing inside. The young man entered it and took in the instruments that were outside. I All these instruments were played upon at the same time, accompanied by singing by the p young man alone. Then all the instruments were taken out; he remained inside the tent. Scarcely a few minutes after there was a noise of brass vessels. Immediately followed the noise of water being poured from one vessel to another. Shortly after he threw out two cloths—one he wore at the time he entered the tent and another. Then he rang a bell, which was a token, I think, of his performing “Pooja.” At last the tent was taken to pieces, when we found the young man dressed like a beautiful damsel, and decorated with flowers and jewels after the fashion of Hindu dancing girls, and wearing white muslin with lace borders, and a violet bodice, the contents of which a constable tried to examine. Before he entered the tent he had three tufts; when he came out his head was like a female’s. The general belief of the Hindus is that it is all done by the help of spirits.
Editor's notes
- ↑ An Indian Medium by unknown author, London Spiritualist, No. 488, December 30, 1881, p. 320
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 488, December 30, 1881, p. 320